What are we when confronted with the interior vortex which swallows us into absurdity? —E. M. Cioran, On the Heights of Despair The eerie… is constituted by a failure of absence or by a failure of presence. —Mark Fisher, The Weird and the Eerie The End of the World came and went. Most of us […]
What Are You Psychologically Projecting?
Is the US dollar on the brink of disaster?
Deleuze & Guattari: Notes on Rhizome
I found myself thinking of phrases perpetuated in people’s conversations lately- the phrase such as “more for me, less for you”. What does this phrase mean? What does it say about the quality of our relationships with others?
Seeing natural and human resources as scarce has made us develop a belief that “the more for me means less for you.” Believing in a scarcity of resources has got us believe that we have to compete with one another to gain, accumulate, and store resources more than what we need. This belief has invited us to view ourselves as separate from others. It has made our focus be on survival rather than connection. This belief has persuaded us to view the other as a threat to our livelihood.
This belief has engaged us in actions to subtly eliminate others. We persuade others to give up on their resources. We implicitly and explicitly influence others to give out their resources. We make deals with others to allow for conditional possession of resources. All these actions are justified within the discourse of competition that maintains the power of individuals/corporations on resources.
The alternative belief is to view resources as abundance. We do not need to engage in competition or misuse/abuse of power to maintain the possession of resources. We can share resources. Resources can be enough for everyone if they are shared. Thinking about resources as abundance is possible a) when we view our needs as limited and b) when we view our abilities/resources as unlimited. This view encourages us to engage in the exchanges of “giving and taking” based on our necessities.
The alterantive belief invites us to let go of the notion of scarcity. It invites us to redefine our needs and necessities. It supports and guarantees our survival, as we learn to consume less, share more, and use only what is needed.
The balance between unlimited abilities and limited needs create a different relationship quality with self and others. When connection is centered in human relationships, one becomes open to share their abilities and resourses with others. The survival of our species is guaranteed when we engage in the exchanges of giving and taking based on abundant resources and limited needs of an individual.
Tahereh Barati, PhD
I believe that the year 2019 is a year of love. Love is misunderstood to be an emotion. I believe Love is a state of awareness. Love is a way of being in the world. Love is a way of seeing oneself and others.
I would like to invite you to reflect on the four key questions:
- What is love to you?
- What kind of love do you want to receive?
- What kind of love do you want to give?
- How could you transform yourself in order to give and receive the love you value most?
Tahereh Barati, PhD
Happy New Year!
I was in a conversation with my friend about having a mantra for the year 2019. As we were talking, she turned on her phone and began to read her mantras: develop a self-care plan, take breaks, listen to your body, etc.
As she was reading, I was thinking of ways to achieve mantras in everyday life.
When she finished, I said how pragmatic these mantras are and how one can do them simultaneously.
So many people have many mantras or new year resolutions but the year ends without accomplishing them. How can we self- care as we talk or as we focus on tasks?
We are good at having self- care activities when no one is around. How could we do self-care when one is in a relationship or when one’s attention is on a task.
Does this wonderment take us to the realm of relational responsibility? Is how we do self- care intertwined with how we care for others? Do you think mantras need to be part of our relationships as shared values? So that we both reassure that they are considered, implemented, and achieved. What do you think?
Tahereh Barati, PhD